the time is near- Heller decided any day

[bossy22]

I'm guessing most of you have realized that we are closing in on the end of the supreme court term so that means there is a good chance that the heller decision will be handed down this week or the beggnining of next week

[aikoaiko]

1. with bated breath..........

[gorfle]

2. I can't wait.

This will totally rip one of the legs off of the anti-firearm stool.

Once the Supreme Court rules that firearm ownership is an individual right that cannot be infringed, the entire debate premise shifts to another plane. Rather than wasting more breath trying to debate whether individuals even have the right to bear arms, now we can focus on what constitutes infringements of the right, and in order to debate that we can get back to fundamental constitutional discussions about why the founders enumerated this individual right in the first place.

I can't wait.

[benedikt15]

9. 2d Amendment protects whom?

2d Amendment appears to me to have something to do with the militia. Moreover, it applies on to "people". "The people" in 1791 excluded slaves, children, women, and aliens. Even a crude "originalist" admits that the term must be made more inclusive. If one interprets "the people" as an indivisible, non-distributed body, such as ordained and established the Constitution and declared our independence, then it would seem that only the militia as a group of white, adult, citizens was intended to be protected. Remember, it was the attempt of the British on 16 years before to seize the powder of the Massachusetts militia that led to the gunfire at Lexington and Concord and the bloody road back to Boston, where they were continually assaulted by Minutemen (a well-disciplined militia.)
If the authors of the Bill of 2d Aendment had intended to say "persons" they would have said so. They distinguished between people and persons all through the Bill of Rights. Persons, with no further specification, includes women and children, slaves, and aliens, which is the reason that the 5th etc. applies to everyone.
This case is an obvious "Personal Security" vs. "Individual Liberty" contest. Some of the justices who usually favor individual liberty, such as Ginsberg, Breyer, Suitor, and Stephens may vote for security this time, Kennedy is an extreme libertarian, and he may join Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Allito to throw out the D.C. ban.
A final couple of words -- States' Rights. While much of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated by decision so that states are subjected to Federal control in the treatment of prisoners, capital punishment etc. there have not been precedents on applying 2d Amendment to states. It would appear that this case could have serious effects on the states(like Hawaii) in which the 2d Amendment is incorporated into the State Constitution. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the word "people" may determine if states can control arms, as they have been doing. If all these laws become unconstitutional, we could have all kinds of dangerous people, owning as many guns as they wish. We must also search the code to see where "people" have been empowered, and "persons" have been held not to have standing to enforce these rights guaranteed to the people. Could mean big money for constitutional lawyerss.

[jody]

10. "all kinds of dangerous people, owning as many guns as they wish"? What people would then be able to

legally own firearms that are currently prevented from owning them under current federal law, i.e. 18 USC 922?

[gorfle]

12. Who is protected.

2d Amendment appears to me to have something to do with the militia. Moreover, it applies on to "people". "The people" in 1791 excluded slaves, children, women, and aliens. Even a crude "originalist" admits that the term must be made more inclusive. If one interprets "the people" as an indivisible, non-distributed body, such as ordained and established the Constitution and declared our independence, then it would seem that only the militia as a group of white, adult, citizens was intended to be protected. Remember, it was the attempt of the British on 16 years before to seize the powder of the Massachusetts militia that led to the gunfire at Lexington and Concord and the bloody road back to Boston, where they were continually assaulted by Minutemen (a well-disciplined militia.)

In my interpretation, the founding fathers probably were referring to able-bodied men aged roughly aged 17-45. In fact the current unorganized militia as defined by the Dick Act specifies all able-bodied men age 17-45. Obviously in this day and age we would consider this sexist and ageist. Who they were then is, to me, not particularly important. What is important is the fundamental concept of a distributed military force designed to eliminate or counter federal military power. The only entity remaining today that can fulfill that vision are The People, meaning all citizens. The militias of our founders' day no longer exist.

As for the rest, I have not studied the differences of context between "persons" and "people" so I have no opinion.

[SteveM]

21. The 4th Amendment uses both "people" and "persons"...

Since I am "out of state" and do not have my books with me, I can't address this distinction too readily (I have done it before on these threads), but the right protected seems to "start" with the people and "end" with persons and effects described. The relationship seems more teleological than that of an abrupt separate category. Certainly, there seems to be little argument over the meaning of "the people" when it is cited in other constitutional protections.

More important, IMO, is the quandary faced by the very conservative justices who must judge in Heller how states can regulate without violating the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment (these justices are not too fond of this provision). They may very well rule that 2A protects an individual's RKBA, and leave it to the states; but surely they will face the question again when citizens ("people", "persons") decide to challenge state/local laws which severely restrict or ban firearms, as is the case in NYC, Chicago, SF, etc. Quite the irony. One of the best summaries of the history of gun control laws (the very foundation of de jure racism in the South) can be found at www.georgiacarry.org (scroll to Heller brief). In there you will find a summary of the history of the 14th Amendment (1868), esp. with regards to 2A and how the Southern states' "militias" were used to arrest newly-freed blacks who were in possession of firearms! The upshot: the authors of 14A clearly saw 2A as a right (privilege and immunity) of a U.S. citizen, not to be trampled on by the states.

[iverglas]

27. for pity's sake

The upshot: the authors of 14A clearly saw 2A as a right (privilege and immunity) of a U.S. citizen, not to be trampled on by the states.

The authors of both "14A" and "2A" clearly saw African-Americans as property.

What knots you do have to twist yourself into, eh?

[TPaine7]

28. Bovine Scatology, people

The authors of the 14th Amendment were abolitionists. They did not see African Americans as property. In fact, one of the clearly stated reasons for the 14th Amendment was to ensure that all freed African Americans--veterans of the Civil War in particular--were afforded the rights of other citizens. This was explicitly said to include the personal, individual "right to keep and bear arms," enforceable against the states.

If you want to read a brief overview, I sketch out relevant history in my open letter at www.obamaonsecond.com . For a much more in-depth coverage, read Yale professor Akhil Reed Amar's The Bill of Rights.

Someone is "twisting," but it's not SteveM. Know your American history.

[iverglas]

29. if you mean to say bullshit, why don't you just say it?

Prattish undergrad pomposity that, as has been explained to you in the past, doesn't even make sense. The term you are looking for is BOVINE SCAT. But that just isn't quite so prattishly pompous sounding, is it?

Ickier than bullshit, this puerile prating.

Forgive my being so amused at this "14A" and "2A" secret lingo that I got carried away with typing them. (Surely it would be "A14" and "A2" if it had to be anything.)

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the history of "14A", actually, but thanks for the lecture.

Now, how 'bout you take a kick at the old "2A" element of it?

The authors of the second amendment were vile racists who had no intention of people of colour ever having the care and control of their own children, let alone possessing firearms.

Where's your bleeding original intent now, hm?

The history of "2A" is part and parcel of the whole racist origins of the USofA.

[Thelvyn]

30. Let me see if I can be non-racist for you.

Let’s forget the history of it and look at it now. As you have read my previous posts, you know that the “gun nuts” have won anyway, regardless of who is right or wrong.

Now I can tell, after viewing a lot of your posts, that your major issue is: Even if someone is “law-abiding”, that they can “become” a criminal. Someone could have no criminal record, enabling them to get a gun and even a carry permit. You don’t like this, because there is nothing to stop them from just snapping one day and becoming a criminal. There is no law that could be made to keep this from happening, and you don’t like it.

Here’s a little vile for you: The above scenario? So what. Even if it happens once, twice, or a hundred times, the vast majority are still law-abiding. And as far as the dead are concerned? I’m won’t be racist, as you claim the founders were being. White, Black, Mexican, or Asian….it doesn’t matter to me as long as all people of all colors (of the law-abiding) in the USA, keep their guns. Which they will. And the dead, of all colors, are still collateral damage. Have a nice night.

[TPaine7]

31. A classic treatise in bovine scatology--the science of bullshit.

Interesting how iverglas magnifies the term bovine scatology as if it were the actual point. As I have already pointed out, I use the term properly.

Notice the diversion to discuss "14A" and "2A" vs "A14" and "A2." Notice how she never explicitly admits she was wrong. Notice how she asks me to defend a position that I never took without honestly and forthrightly admitting that she posted false information. Notice the actual pomposity of the juvinile taunt: "Where's your bleeding original intent now, hm?" (As if I said anything about the original intent of the Second Amendment. She said two things, I refuted one and didn't comment on the other, she tried to change the subject to what I didn't say.)

Notice how the Second Amendment is painted as being racist, instead of simply being ratified (partially) by racists. (By this logic, separation of powers must be racist too.)

This compound sophistry is not merely bullshit--bovine scat--it is the science or "-ology" of bullshit. It is bovine scatology.

[iverglas]

35. now, if only

If only some nice professor would explain the meaning of the word "science" to you.

If your premise that my posts are bullshit are true, YOU, not I, are engaged in scatology when you study them.

The "science of" something is the STUDY OF that thing. I am not engaged in the study of anything when I reply to your sophomoric sophistry.


Hey, pal. I was wrong. I overtyped myself. I was fascinated with the silly jargon. I went overboard with it. I made a MISTAKE.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=150593&mesg_id=150754

iverglas
Mon Oct-22-07 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #59

... Perhaps you've also heard of the fourteenth amendment to your Constitution. Here, let me assist again ...:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Seeing it at all?

It may not be the easiest thing to see for some people with a certain mindset and frame of reference, which is why analogies may be useful.

"Slavery was only addressed in the constitution prior to the thirteenth amendment as far as taxes were concerned." <per poster to whom I was replying>

Uh huh. And of course, that makes my point. Slavery was addressed in LAWS. Laws that permitted various actions against slaves. Laws that violated the constitutional guarantees against deprivation of life and liberty without due process.

If there were no thirteenth amendment to your Constitution, could those actions against persons in the US be permitted by laws, now? If there were no constitutional prohibition on slavery, could a state make laws permitting people to abduct and confine other people and force them to work for no wages, and assault or kill them if they refused?

... The fifth amendment to your Constitution (extended to the states by the fourteenth amendment) prohibits the state from depriving any person of property without due process of law. ...

That would be before you sprang into existence in this place, I believe, grasshopper.

Google iverglas "fourteenth amendment" and you'll find some more to keep you busy, going waaaaaay back before that, and also specifically in relation to reproductive rights. See whether you can find anything to suggest that I am ignorant of your fourteenth amendment, to counter my assurance that my reference to it in the post under discussion here was anything other than slipshod mistake.



Now. Here is the sum total sustantive content of the post of yours to which you refer:

The authors of the 14th Amendment were abolitionists. They did not see African Americans as property. In fact, one of the clearly stated reasons for the 14th Amendment was to ensure that all freed African Americans--veterans of the Civil War in particular--were afforded the rights of other citizens. This was explicitly said to include the personal, individual "right to keep and bear arms," enforceable against the states.

You now say:

Notice how she asks me to defend a position that I never took

To which I reply:

Notice how you butted in to a discussion you were not part of. Notice how you failed to address what *I* said in the discussion you chose to butt into.

The authors of your foundational documents were racists. The second amendment to your constitution was never intended to give people of colour the right to do anything, any more than any other bits of it were until that changed many decades later.

They who live by flamingly false allegations of racism must die in the fire of the truth, methinks.

[TPaine7]

53. Yet More Bovine Scatology? Sigh.

First iverglas insulted everyone’s knowledge of history. But most people don’t know the history of the Fourteenth Amendment, so I thought I would step in and help.

Now she is insulting your general knowledge. Normally I would let this go, but I think an explanation might help someone--so I’ll wade into this depressing sophistry. She is assuming that you’ve never heard of applied science. For example, in applied physics, quantum effects could be used to increase the efficiency of solar cells.

If only some nice professor would explain the meaning of the word "science" to you. . .

The "science of" something is the STUDY OF that thing. I am not engaged in the study of anything when I reply to your sophomoric sophistry.

LOL. The condescension used to make mopping the floor entertaining, now it’s just tiring. I only do this for the innocent readers who might be misled.

I, unlike someone else, don’t need anything explained. For those who do, here it is:

Obviously the applied science of bovine scat would be the production, use, and dissemination of bullshit to a practical end—such as to make people believe in a particular gun control agenda.

Just another “overtyping,” no doubt.

If your premise that my posts are bullshit are true, YOU, not I, are engaged in scatology when you study them.

It seems iverglas forgets quickly:

TPaine7
84. It isn't about you. Really.

...

I'm not going to investigate your comments, iverglas. I don't care enough. Do you understand that yet?. . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x170607#171924

So she still invites me to engage in bovine scatology:

Google iverglas "fourteenth amendment" and you'll find some more to keep you busy, going waaaaaay back before that, and also specifically in relation to reproductive rights. See whether you can find anything to suggest that I am ignorant of your fourteenth amendment, to counter my assurance that my reference to it in the post under discussion here was anything other than slipshod mistake.

I am not a fellow scatologist, I just have a keen sense of smell. I don't do searches on her posts. And while I sometimes read her current posts, I don’t study them. I don’t need to. The stench leaps off the page.

I know that some readers’ olfactory senses are less developed, so I try to help them out. “Why do you think this cake store is at the edge of a pasture?” I ask the sincere customer.

The proprietor is ready with a plausible answer—“we get the freshest milk here”—but I persist.

“Why do you think your slice of cake has thick icing on the sides as well as the top and back? Isn’t that unusual?”

“Did you notice all of those gloved guys in lab coats scraping stuff up off of the pasture as you drove in? Do you notice the heavy scent of air freshener and potpourri? Do you really think it’s all about pasture smells?”

“See that blade of undigested grass after your first fork cut?” Finally, “smell the fork.”

Some swallow it anyway. Some like it. I just want them informed.

That would be before you sprang into existence in this place, I believe, grasshopper.

I am relatively new to this Temple, I admit. But I remain convinced that truth is the best style.

Maybe some kind old-timer could point out to Revered Teacher of Bull Style Kung-Fu that the pebble is in Grasshopper’s hip pocket.

Has been since day one.

Notice how you butted in to a discussion you were not part of. Notice how you failed to address what *I* said in the discussion you chose to butt into.

LOL. This “butting in” stuff again?!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=171276

The assertion that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were racists needed correcting. No one else was doing it.

I don’t care to converse with iverglas. I don't even care if she "honestly" forgets the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and the existence of the disciplines of applied science at opportune times. My objective is to help sincere readers, and I will correct bovine scatology when I see fit. I don’t think practitioners of Bull Style can stop me.

"They who live by flamingly false allegations of racism must die in the fire of the truth, methinks."

Too true. Too funny.

:rofl:

[TPaine7]

64. A Little Real History

The second amendment to your constitution was never intended to give people of colour the right to do anything, any more than any other bits of it were until that changed many decades later.

Real history is more complicated than the cartoon version.

In Dred Scott, the Supreme Court attempted to show that blacks had none of the rights of citizenship:

The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution.

…

It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several States, became also citizens of this new political body; but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.

…

For if they <African Americans>were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police <60 U.S. 393, 417> regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

…

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

Chief Justice Tanney argued that blacks were not citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and therefore they never could be. He agreed with iverglas about the intent of the founding documents. But Tanney actually understood what he was talking about, and in order to sustain his point he lied.

Only lies could sustain his point.

In his dissent, Justice Curtis called Tanney on his lie:

To determine whether any free persons, descended from Africans held in slavery, were citizens of the United States under the Confederation, and consequently at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, it is only necessary to know whether any such persons were citizens of either of the States under the Confederation, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New <60 U.S. 393, 573> York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.

Justice Curtis then cited copious and authoritative evidence, including state constitutions and state Supreme Court cases to back his assertion.

As Tanney had admitted, the class of people who were citizens at the adoption of the Constitution were intended to be protected by the Constitution. But blacks were citizens at that time. As is often the case in gun control and other rights deprivations, a lie was required.

The founders could not have been unaware that blacks were full citizens of some colonies. They therefore could not have been unaware that those blacks were protected by the Second Amendment. Since they didn’t write in an exception “except for those citizens whose ancestry is African” there is only one conclusion—free blacks were protected.

The fact that Tanney manufactured a lie to pretend away actual history changes nothing about the original intent of the Second Amendment, any more than modern gun control lies do. But Tanney didn’t have the excuse of many modern gun control advocates—profound ignorance.

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393

As usual, iverglas is wrong in more than one way. The Second Amendment never gave anyone, black or white, any rights. So technically, she was almost right. But only technically. As the Supreme Court correctly observed in Cruikshank:

The right there specified <in the Second Amendment> is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=92&page=542

We have rights because we are human beings, not because some men wrote a Constitution. The Constitution recognizes our right to arms, that is all.

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. A DUer agreeing with Roger Taney to make a point?

Perish forbid!
We'll just have to accept this as a faith-promoting rumor.
It's for a higher truth, you know.

[stompk]

37. well said.

applause.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. Yes, I'm quite familiar with the history of "14A", actually, but thanks for the lecture.

Then how did you get it so wrong?

David

[Duke Newcombe]

54. Is this tortured definition of "the People"...

...to apply to the Fourth Amendment as well?

If you accept that "people" only applies to white landowning males, then I'd better flush my stash quickly then. How about you?

Or is this sophistry to minimize an amendment you don't care for? I ask for informational purposes only.

Duke

[davepc]

3. only two more Mondays in June.

[virginia mountainman]

4. A blurb on the news said that they would meet on Thursday..

To hand down descisons...

But most likely it will be the 23rd. (for Heller) I think, that they could be in recess for the Monday that falls on the 30th.

Anyone want to take bets on who will be the first prominent Democrat on the national news decrying the verdict ? :puke:

After, all, it IS an election year, so someone MUST prominently run down gun owners. :puke:

But it will offer Obama a chance to shake the "gun banner" image, if he takes it...I don't think a qualified statement like;
"I believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms, BUT ...." will cut it.

[slackmaster]

5. My short list

Mayor Fenty of DC
Congresswoman McCarthy of New York
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
Senator Frank Lautenberg
Senator Diane Feinstein

On the Republican side:

Jim and Sarah Brady
Paul Helmke

[michreject]

6. Great list

I might add Sen. Schumer

[bossy22]

7. i think Pelosi will be quiet about it

she was quiet during VT when prominant gun controllers were pushing more gun control

I think Fenty will go up there and talk about how dissapointed he is and how the supreme court is going to put more guns on the street blah blah

Frank Lautenberg will say the legislation he pushes does not infringe on the right to bear arms

Diane Feinstein will ignore the ruling and still push the same legislation

[krispos42]

18. Don't forget Mayor Daly of Chicago

Or Mayor Bloomberg of New York City. They have separate city laws about guns.

[WWFZD]

11. In Ohio

Dems: Kucinich will decry the verdict. If I'd been probed, or visited by or whatever his thing is, by aliens like Kuch has I'd have a different opinion of the RKBA than he does.
Our fine governor Ted Strickland will fully support the ruling.
Reps: Voinivich will cry, but won't know why.

It'll be interesting to hear what Sherrod Brown thinks.

[Turbo Teg]

46. Strickland is

Sweet! Very pro gun democrat. Fixed a lot of our CCW laws. Good job.

[old mark]

8. I believe it will be released Monday the 23rd

before they go on summer vacation.

I notice the politicians afe being a little quiet on this issue, waiting to see the verdict.

mark

[Boomer 50]

13. I think tomorrow...

SCOTUS seems likely to send a message and "Juneteenth" day will definitely do that. I'll be on scotusblog with their live coverage.

[T4RSR5]

14. On a scarier note,,,

If Gore or Kerry had been elected, and put 2 more judges on the bench, this decision would probably be guaranteed to go the other way. This needs to be fixed. Why are we counting on Republicans to secure our civil rights for us?

[SteveM]

22. Good question. "Gun control" is a recent issue not in keeping with liberalism...

Before the mid-60s the Democratic Party platform didn't even bring up guns or the Second Amendment. What the Party DID do was allow yet another special interest group to conjure up a recent interpretation of "liberalism" which we are now stuck with. In other words, Dems didn't do their homework. Further, scholarship on 2A is also recent (and court cases are quite few), and few liberal scholars bothered to study 2A, being afraid as it were to "get their hands around" the icky issue of guns or upset a supposedly influential (and recent) interest group patching together a declining Democratic Party. So it was left largely to conservative scholars (and some liberal ones) to develop a body of knowledge about 2A. Though I count myself solidly on the left, I don't automatically reject good thinking if it should come from a conservative. I suggest: Kates & Kleck, THE GREAT AMERICAN GUN DEBATE for a good short history of the phenomenon you reference.

[iverglas]

26. yeah, kinda like reproductive rights and freedom

The Democratic Party didn't have much to say about that during the 60s either, I think.

Or about racial equality, for quite a while prior to that.

And it still doesn't have much to say about, oh, equal marriage rights.


I'm afraid I'm not catching your drift.


If the Democratic Party hasn't got on board yet, then the issue is a right-wing hobbyhorse?

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but then many things don't.


And of course not everybody gives a crap what's in keeping with "liberalism". Some people take considered, principled positions on things and just don't care whether those positions square with someone else's arbitrary definition of a term that ceased to have much meaning quite a long time ago.

[davepc]

15. Nothing today...

[iverglas]

16. in the Canadian news

http://www.thestar.com/article/443381

My gun, my right. We'll see

As Toronto's mayor calls for a handgun ban, America's highest court is deciding the fate of a similar law south of the border. Canadian legal experts are watching closely
Jun 14, 2008 04:30 AM

... There's simply no escaping the fact the U.S. Constitution enshrines the right to bear arms, whether it's for military or private use, and there's no similar right in Canada, said Sanjeev Anand, a law professor at the University of Alberta.

"In fact, we have not enshrined property interests at all in the Canadian Constitution or the Canadian Charter (of Rights and Freedoms)," Anand said.

Socially and politically, it may be a different story. Canadian lobby groups may try to exploit the ruling to support their philosophical stance on guns, but others may simply look upon it with voyeuristic interest at what those sometimes perplexing Americans are doing, said Osgoode Hall law professor Allan Hutchinson.

...

[bossy22]

17. interesting article

[iverglas]

19. sometimes

an outside view is actually worth seeing.

I was of course vastly amused by the references to Pink Pistols and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership as the two intervenors cited on that side. Either the journalist didn't look into them beyond the surface, or she did and was as amused as I and just played it straight.

[SteveM]

23. Good opportunity for turn-about-is-fair-play...

If Canada were to legalize and regulate illegal drugs, maybe that would have a positive influence on U.S. policy. God knows, it's a long border.

[iverglas]

24. surely you haven't missed the discussions

I mean, I know it wouldn't actually be in the news on your side of the border, but ...

The Senate of Canada produced a report a couple of years ago recommending that possession of cannabis be decriminalized. It's pretty sure there'd be majority support for the idea in a referendum, if one were to be held. (We don't govern by referendum here, so that won't happen.)

The Ambassador of the US promptly made his chums' views on the matter known.

The fact of the matter is that we cannot risk having individual and commercial traffic across the border impeded. Our economy depends on trade and to some extent tourism. If we did this, we would be subjected to reprisals that we might not be able to withstand.

So meanwhile, for internal purposes, we just don't bother much with law enforcement. My household bought our seeds at a shoppe on the main shopping street last year. If, say, the police had come to my house to investigate a break-in, I probably wouldn't have bothered hiding anything. Well, no point taking risks; I wouldn't have invited them out to the deck.

However, Marc Emery, the quite obnoxious Vancouver loonytarian (late of my home town, old chum of my little bro) who operated a mail-order seed company completely openly, on the net and on location, was charged last year in the US with some big hoo-hah crime. I think our Supreme Court might have refused to allow him to be extradited, in view of the possible life sentence in the US and the inconsistency with our own constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But it was chancey, and the thing was that your people were also charging two of his associates. Emery took the deal to serve 5 years in exchange for charges being dropped against them.

From our standpoint here, the consequences of the prohibition in the US are horrific.

The crop grown here is exported to the US and traded for cocaine ... and, yes indeed, firearms. Firearms are what you have that organized crime outside the US (same is true for Mexico) wants.

So the crop is grown here by organized crime. The Hell's Angels and their associates and rivals. They grow it purely because it is a tradeable product, tradeable for the things they want and can't get here: guns for themselves and for trafficking, and cocaine for trafficking. To make money. Millions and millions and millions of dollars of it.

So who's the victim? WE ARE. We're the victim. The victim of US drug policy *and* US firearms policy.

Unless drug policy changes IN THE U.S., decriminalizing cannabis here would only make legitimate trade more difficult, and illicit trade easier and more attractive.

When you think about it, it's not actually like anything the rest of the world does has ever had any effect on what gets done in the US, is it? Universal health care, proper access to reproductive health services, proper access to post-secondary education ... we have 'em all, and have had for quite a while, and you don't. We try to lead by example, but nobody's watching.



Research paper from Library of Parliament on the subject:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0433-e.htm#cunited

Canada's Proposed Decriminalization of Marijuana:
International Implications and Views
17 December 2004

... C. United States Agencies and Officials

The reports of the House of Commons and Senate Special Committees in relation to cannabis in 2002 caused some immediate concern in the United States. The Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, John Walters, warned that relaxed marijuana laws would lead to an increase in drug abuse in Canada, stating, “When you weaken the societal sanctions against drug use, you get more drug use. Why? Because drugs are a dangerous addictive substance.” The United States also expressed concern that liberalized marijuana laws in Canada would lead to more drugs crossing into the United States. For example, Colonel Robert Maginnis, a drug policy adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush, asserted that the United States would not look kindly on changes to Canadian marijuana laws and warned that it would be forced to take action. He stated, “It creates some law enforcement problems and I think it creates some trade problems and some perception problems, especially in the U.S., with regard to whether Canada is engaged in fighting drug use rather than contributing to drug use” and “We’re going to have to clamp down even stronger on our border if you liberalize and contribute to what we consider a drug tourism problem.”(39)

After Canada introduced its initial marijuana bill in May 2003, John Walters, the U.S. Drug Control Policy Director, warned that if the bill passed, the result would be increased security and lengthy delays at the border.(40) He was quoted as saying, “We don’t want the border with Canada looking like the U.S.-Mexico border,”(41) “You expect your friends to stop the movement of poison toward your neighbourhood” and “We have to be concerned about American citizens … When you make the penalties minimal, you get more drug production, you get more drug crime.”(42) David Murray, special assistant to Mr. Walters, stated that the proposed decriminalization initiative was “a matter we look upon with some concern and some regret” and “We would have no choice but to respond.”(43) Mr. Murray was also quoted as saying, “We have a working partnership that has been mutually beneficial with enormous amounts of trade. Eighty-five percent of Canada’s exports go into the United States. … That trade is mutually beneficial, but we might have to make sacrifices for the integrity of the border on both sides if we recognize that drug trade is hurting us.”(44)

Also in 2003, Asa Hutchinson, Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, was quoted as saying, “We don’t want the northern border to be a trafficking route for drugs” and “If countries have divergent policies on drugs, then that increases the potential of the borders becoming a trafficking route.”(45) Will Glaspy, spokesman for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, was quoted as saying, “Liberalizing drug laws will lead to an increase in drug use … and drug supplies. They will lead to increased security at the border.”(46)

While it does not appear to have commented on the decriminalization of marijuana itself, the U.S. National Drug Intelligence Center has identified what it considers to be a significant issue regarding the growing importation of marijuana into the United States from Canada. It has noted that Canada is the source of considerable and increasing amounts of high-grade marijuana available in U.S. drug markets.(47)

In response to Canada’s most recent bill regarding marijuana law reform, Paul Cellucci, the American ambassador to Canada, has commented on Canada’s proposed legislation with the following statements: “Why, when we’re trying to take pressure off the border, would Canada pass a law that would put pressure on the border?” and “If people think it’s easier to get marijuana in Canada, then our people at the border are going to be on the lookout, and I think they will stop more vehicles, particularly vehicles driven by young people, whether they’re citizens of Canada or the United States.”(48)

Although officials and agencies of the United States administration have commented negatively on Canada’s proposed decriminalization of marijuana in the past, the United States does not appear to have taken any formal position on the latest bill to reduce penalties for marijuana possession and production in small amounts. During his visit to Ottawa on 30 November 2004, President George W. Bush would not publicly speculate on whether marijuana decriminalization in Canada would result in a border crackdown, saying that “it’ll probably affect those who use marijuana a lot more than it’ll affect the border.”(49) The President preferred not to discuss Canada’s marijuana law reform, adding “I don’t have a comment on what you’re doing internally about that.”(50) Deputy Prime Minister Anne McClellan confirmed that the issue “was certainly not brought up in either of the meetings I attended with the President and his people.”(51) However, newspaper sources stated that Mr. Bush expressed some reservations about marijuana decriminalization, similar to those of Ambassador Paul Cellucci, in a private conversation with Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.(52)

Given the lack of an official American position on Canada’s proposed marijuana law reform, it is unclear what impact the latest bill, if adopted, would have on Canada-U.S. relations and, in particular, border control.

But we'd kinda have to be morons not to have a pretty good idea.

[SteveM]

25. I keep up pretty well...

I've been a member of the Marijuana Policy Project for over 10 years and helped organize marches to legalize ganja -- in Texas.

[T4RSR5]

32. Iverglass, Off topic but I must ask...

How many cats do you own/support/take care of or just hang out with?

[iverglas]

34. in order

own: three
support: approximately, oh, 10
take care of: none


Three live in the house.

Several live in the local feral colony and I and another highly accomplished, socially conscious, politically active woman on the block buy food for them.

I am not in charge of cat duties in my household. I don't feed, water, let in or out, clean catboxes or otherwise farm. What do you imagine men are for?


hang out with: the three owned plus one in particular of the ferals. Raoul. Beautiful long-haired grey tom, fathers kittens occasionally, and looks after them admirably. Some males of species are just nice guys, aren't they?


Give the male of my species in the household his head, and he'd have every single one of your gunz melted into molten metal. He'd invite you to the seat of government to protest, and he'd train the gummint's guns on you, and let everybody know exactly what the consequences of not turning those things in would be. He was just fantasizing about it the other night. What a pussycat, eh? Arenchoo glad I'm not like him?

[SlipperySlope]

40. * deleted *

* deleted *

[solinvictus]

55. So...

"Give the male of my species in the household his head, and he'd have every single one of your gunz melted into molten metal. He'd invite you to the seat of government to protest, and he'd train the gummint's guns on you, and let everybody know exactly what the consequences of not turning those things in would be. He was just fantasizing about it the other night. What a pussycat, eh? Arenchoo glad I'm not like him?

...your significant other is a Stalinist? You know, Pyongyang is nice this time of year. Do you have portraits of Mao, Che Guevara, and Castro framed around your home?

[iverglas]

56. so so

Aww, don't you have any fantasies?

What a drab life you must lead.

[iverglas]

36. and of course

Gun militants aren't misogynist.

Noooooooo.

[Eagle_Eye]

38. So iverglas is a victim. That explains a lot

iverglas and all Canadians are a victim of the United States and its constitution, therefore iverglas wants to restrict my possession of the guns which I already have. iverglas wants to restrict my right to own guns, as an American, because Canadians are victims.

Excuse me, but you are posting in the DemocraticUnderground.com, a web site that promotes freedom and the exercise of rights, not the restriction of rights.

Have a nice day.

[apocalypsehow]

39. Is that what you read? Actually, excuse me, but no: is that what you *DAYDREAMED* you read?

There, that's better.

Back in the early nineties I was a big fan of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine." Only sci-fi program I ever really "got into" in the never-miss-it sense. There was an episode called "Babel" which involved the release of a virus that scrambled the brain's ability to produce coherent sentences based on their perceptions of what was being said to or happening around them.

Or, as the handiest source I can find with Google says:

"Quick Overview: A mysterious virus plagues the station that disrupts one's audio and visual brain processes. Because of this, nobody understands one another." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel_%28DS9_episode%29 )

In practice, this meant that someone inflicted with the virus would go to say "Here is my opinion on what you posted above" and what would come out of their mouths instead would be "My tongue dribbles poop in plops lost," or "So iverglas is a victim. That explains a lot."

Casting a discerning eye over your reply to the poster, one can only assume that this a proverbial example of life imitating art. Or at least Star Trek.

I'd get that checked out.

[Eagle_Eye]

41. Yea, I daydreamed it.

iverglas said:

"
So the crop is grown here by organized crime. The Hell's Angels and their associates and rivals. They grow it purely because it is a tradeable product, tradeable for the things they want and can't get here: guns for themselves and for trafficking, and cocaine for trafficking. To make money. Millions and millions and millions of dollars of it.

So who's the victim? WE ARE. We're the victim. The victim of US drug policy *and* US firearms policy."

I day dreamed that right as I cut and pasted it out of iverglas' post.

[Tejas]

42. odd, isn't it

Gun-grabbers that are part-time Trekkies sure go off easily, don't they? It's a very good thing that gun-grabbers don't have access to phazers and proton torpedoes or we'd all have a really big mess on our hands!

Captain iverglas: "Focus the tractor beam on their weapons and grab them, then transport the gun-militants to the brig!"

Leutenant apocalypsehow: "Oh goodie goodie!"
{insert tractor-beam-space-sound here}

Captain iverglas: "......and do something about that #@%& litter box on Deck C!"


:rofl:

[bossy22]

43. LOL

btw its photon torpedo not proton

i used to be a big time trekkie...still got my collectibles and im saving them- hey they may be worth something in the future

[iverglas]

49. okay

:rofl:

And be sure to call me "sir".

[apocalypsehow]

44. Yeah, you did. Your post bore no relationship to what was actually said. Why don't you try again?

This time I'd read slower. Or better. Or something. Works every time for my seven year old. :thumbsup:

[Eagle_Eye]

45. The original post was about the Heller decision in the Supreme Court

I know, I got draw in by iverglas changing the topic of the thread from the Supreme Court to cocaine and motorcycle gangs engaged in criminal activities.

I prefer to post like an adult and not have to drop down the the seven year old level for people like apocalypsehow when I am participating in a discussion.

[apocalypsehow]

50. Ah, so now we're back to moving the goalposts, are we?

Funny, but that sure seems like a seven year old tactic, since it last flourished in company I routinely keep on the playground at recess many, many moons ago..... ( :eyes: )

[iverglas]

51. somebody needs to have a word with SteveM

Perhaps ol' Eagle_Eye here will do it.

I posted an article about Heller. SteveM suggested that Canada legalize drugs ...

[iverglas]

48. or the Twilight Zone

I don't recall that particular Deep Space Nine. Some channel here just started it over from the beginning ... will have to watch for it.

I'm always put in mind of the Twilight Zone episode where the guy is at the office and all of a sudden people start using strange words in their sentences. He goes home for lunch ... here we are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wordplay_(The_Twilight_Zone)

As Lowery leaves for lunch at home, a subordinate asks for a referral to a good place to go for "dinosaur". Lowery tries to find out why the co-worker isn't using the correct word ("lunch"), but the co-worker walks away annoyed. Lowery arrives home where his wife says their son is feeling worse. When she complains that he didn't eat his "dinosaur", Lowery thinks his wife and co-workers have been pulling a practical joke. He soon realises, however, that he is the one out-of sync.

... At the end of the episode, Bill sits down in his son's bedroom and picks up one of his ABC books, studying the basics of the language that he needs to re-learn. Under the picture of a dog, the word is "Wednesday."

So iverglas is a dinosaur. Explains everything, eh?

[SlipperySlope]

20. SCOTUS doesn't have to release Heller opinion.

Monday June 23rd is the final scheduled opinion day of this session.

The week of June 23rd to June 27th is the final work week of this session.

Normal SCOTUS procedure is that additional opinion days can be scheduled at the last minute during the final week of a session. So if Heller isn't released on 6/23, it could come any time from 6/24 to 6/27. Monday the 30th is theoretically possible as well, but unlikely as they wanted to shut things down at the end of next week.

However - SCOTUS doesn't have to release Heller at all. It is rare, but sometimes they hold opinions over to the following session. If the court decides to do this then we wouldn't see Heller until October or later.

[bossy22]

68. i doubt they will

hold it over to the next session

[bossy22]

47. monday anybody?

the court has 10 more cases to release oppinions- what do you think the chance is that heller will be monday?

[Thelvyn]

52. I'd say really good.

I think tomorrow's chances of hearing our individual ruling are pretty darned good. If we get our decision tomorrow, I may just have to gather my friends and take my entire collection out to the range in celebration; regardless of having to clean all twenty in the evening. 3 AK-47s, 2 AR-15s, 1 UZI, 2 Glocks, 2 1911s, 2 Revolvers, 3 Urban Combat Hand Pistols, 1 Double Barrel, 3 pump-action shotguns, and 1 AK-47 style shotgun.

[davepc]

57. No Heller today.

How long are they going to drag this out.

[bossy22]

59. until the end of this week

and most likely it will be justice Scalia writing the majority oppinion

[aikoaiko]

58. 10:15 est, Monday, June 23 -- No decision yet.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html

[bossy22]

60. sorry folks

guess we got to wait till wednsday or thursday

[virginia mountainman]

61. According to the schedule..

Today is the last day of the session...


http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/07termcourtcalendar.pdf

[bossy22]

62. they added a day

wed. is the day....7 oppinions remaining

[tburnsten]

63. I wonder how hard they will come down on D.C.

after D.C. attempts to circumvent their ruling however they can. Hopefully they will do more than just force D.C. to reopen its registry to non-connected individuals. I also wonder how much tomfoolery D.C. will be able to get away with before they get taken to task for it. I think it is unfortunate that certain large cities feel they are free to waste taxpayer money all they want on legislation they know is morally bankrupt and frequently illegal. I also wonder whether or not the state of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will thrash the high commander of Philadelphia and the police king of Philadelphia for their illegal laws and their blatant disrespect for the public service positions they hold as well as the laws of the land and their own citizens. Will they be required to pay out of pocket compensation to any citizen caught up in their little anti-gun jihad after the cases are thrown out of court? The police can hassle an individual quite a bit under color of city laws, despite the D.A. flat refusing to prosecute anyone for "violating" the new laws.

I think that political animals who waste taxpayer money despite such scathing rebukes from the state and their own D.A. should be held fully accountable, they know better, they have had the issues explained to them a thousand times, and still they persist in throwing our money into their personal toilet while trying to harass and intimidate gun owners as much as they can get away with. They should be hung out to dry with the full cost of the edicts they know are illegal yet pass anyway.

[old mark]

66. June 26 is latest guess...

...I hope they will not postpone the release till later this year.

mark

[bossy22]

67. i have a feeling they will release it today

[slackmaster]

69. SCOTUS blog link for those interested in near-real-time coverage

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

[gorfle]

70. no guns today

Blog says no gun decision today.

[gorfle]

74. All remaining opinions tommorrow

All remaining opinions will be rendered tomorrow at 10am.

[tburnsten]

79. Tomorrow is a long way away

[slackmaster]

71. Nothing to see here today

Come back tomorrow.

:argh:

[davepc]

72. or in October

[bossy22]

75. nope, tommorrow

justices said all outstanding oppinions will be released tommorow

[michreject]

73. Not today

10:21 Tom Goldstein - Guns is not being decided today. Last opinion coming now

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

[michreject]

76. Thursday @ 10:00 AM

10:27 Ben Winograd - The Chief Justice has announced from the courtroom that the Court will issue all of its remaining opinions tomorrow at 10 a.m. Eastern.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

edit to add:


10:29 Tom Goldstein - To recap for those watching the Heller decision, it will definitely be decided tomorrow morning.

[gorfle]

77. Definitely tomorrow

Justice Scalia is writing for Heller. Decision to come tomorrow at 10:00am EST.

[bossy22]

78. that sort of gives it a way

lol

[Stump]

80. Last chance for predictions...

Any takers? I'm going with the ban stays...whatdya' guys think?

[slackmaster]

81. OK, I'm going on record - The de facto ban, denials of permits die, 7-2

Heavy defeat with Breyer and Ginsburg dissenting on the grounds that essentially banning handguns in DC is somehow "reasonable".

RKBA as stated in the Second Amendment will be confirmed unanimously as an individual right, but subject to "reasonable" regulation by states; DC has same kinds of powers as the actual states in that regard but the majority will say that its de facto complete ban goes way too far in allowing government to control what people keep inside of their homes.

The end result will be that a person in DC who really wants a handgun will be able to buy one, after DC straightens its act out. The system will end up looking something like what they have in New York City, where it is very difficult to get a concealed-carry permit but pretty much anyone who really wants to own a handgun to keep in their home, use occasionally at a range, etc. can generally get one.

The de facto bans in Chicago, and places like Morton Grove, IL will be the next dominos to fall.

[davepc]

82. Beware the plurality decision.

[Tejas]

84. in this case, a win is still a win n/t

[bossy22]

83. the ban is going to be gone

with scalia writing the oppinion most likely i see a 5-2-2 split

5- ban gone
2- 2A individual right- but ban is reasonable
2- 2A collective rights

I cant see how anyone who sees the 2A as an individual right can say the ban is a reasonable restriction...its like saying its okay to ban newspapers as long as you allow magazines

[Tejas]

85. How are the odds on 6-3?

Breyer, Stevens, and Souter will cast no's. I've pondered looking for Vegas websites offering odds, they'll bet on anything out there!

:rofl:

[bossy22]

86. LOL

you start seeing OTB's servicing SCOTUS bloggers and law students

[tburnsten]

88. Scalia is writing the opinon. No chance for Fenty

He will be tossed out in the cold on this one, luckily for the rest of the country. I can't wait till ten!

[bossy22]

87. less than 12 hours to go

[gorfle]

89. Less than 15 minutes to go!

.

[gorfle]

90. Heller will be last n/t

[gorfle]

91. woohoho!

10:13
Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.